Decided on March 16,1951

Dharmeswar Kalita Appellant
THE STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-


Cited Judgements :-



Ram Labhaya, J. - (1.)THE petitioner, Dharmeswar Kalita, was summoned on a complaint from Jubaraj Medhi, Inspector of Police, Special Police -Establishment, Government of India, Shillong. The complaint was under Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 471, Penal Code. A co -accused of the petitioner was Jogendranath Chakravarty. The petitioner applied to the Court for the stay of the proceedings on the complaint. He also objected to the competency of the proceedings on the ground that the complainant had no authority to institute the complaint. His prayer for stay was refused and his objection was disallowed. He has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of thi3 Court with a view to having the proceedings quashed. He bas also prayed, is the alternative, for stay of the proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit instituted by him.
(2.)THE case disclosed in the complaint was that the petitioner Dharmeswar Kalita was a Military Contractor during the war period. His co -accused Jogendranath Chakravarty was a Store, Munshi at Niamati M.E.S. Stores. In 1945, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sibsagar, invited tenders for supply of Jati Bamboos. The petitioner submitted his tender. This was accepted and he was given an order to supply 5000 Jati Bamboos according to the terms of the contract dated 14th June 1946 at the rate of Rs. 22 per thousand besides transport charges. Bamboos were to be delivered at Niamati M.B.S. Store and the supply was to be completed before 15th July 1945, The petitioner submitted a bill to the Divisional Forest Officer, Sibsagar, claiming payment for the supply of 4617 Jati Bamboos alleged to have been supplied on four different dates in August 1945. His bill was supported by receipts granted by accused 2 (Jogendranath Chakravarty). The Sub -divisional Officer, Panitola M.E.S. in the course of his verification of the alleged supply, found certain discrepancies in the accounts and on his report a Court of inquiry was held. They found that no supply at all had been made by the petitioner. The complainant also investigated the case and came to the same conclusion. He examined the ledger for the minor forest produce containing the entries showing the alleged supplies. His conclusion was that the entries in the ledger were interpolated. He has alleged further in the complaint that Jogendranath Chakravarty, the co -accused of the petitioner, had no authority to accept any supply or to grant any receipt during the relevant period.
The case for the prosecution in short is that the petitioner never supplied the bamboos he undertook the supply and that his claim which was entirely false was supported by false receipts and records which had been falsified.

(3.)THE petitioner's contention is that he supplied 4617 Jati Bamboos and had obtained receipts from the officer who actually received them. He then submitted his bill and as it was not paid, he served notifies under Section 80, Civil P.C., on the Government of India and the Government of Assam. Even this brought him no redress. He then instituted suit claiming Rs. 4,367 against the Government of India and the Government of Assam on 17th June 1948 in the Court of the Ex -officio Sub -Judge, Sibsagar, where the case is still pending. He has also pointed out that the defendants took 14 adjournments covering a period of one year and five months to file their written statement. It was filed on 12th January 1950, about two years after the institution of the suit.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.